Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it says the deletion is workspace-wide and irreversible, and clarifies the side effect that scheduled posts on those days remain untouched — context not present in the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, with the action and scope front-loaded and the irreversible/non-cascading consequences following immediately. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter destructive delete with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral nuance (irreversibility, workspace-wide effect, posts unaffected). No output schema exists, but a delete's return value is unlikely to be needed; only alternative-route guidance is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter's description already explains where the noteId comes from. The description adds nothing about noteId format or lookup, so baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a calendar note') plus the scope ('for everyone in the workspace'), which distinguishes it from a private/local delete. It does not explicitly name the sibling (e.g., update_calendar_note) that an agent should prefer for modification, though the scope detail does most of the differentiating work.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'ask the person you work for first' line gives a confirmation cue, which implies this is a deliberate, rarely-used action. However, it never names an alternative or states when not to use it (e.g., 'to edit rather than remove, use update_calendar_note'), leaving routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.